I’m a Refugee

I’m a refugee. I fled Communist Poland and was granted political asylum in the United States. That was so long ago that I don’t think of myself as a refugee any more. I’m an American — not by birth but by choice. My understanding is that being an American has nothing to do with ethnicity, religion, or personal history. I became an American by accepting a certain system of values specified in the Constitution. Things like freedom of expression, freedom from persecution, equality, pursuit of happiness, etc. I’m also a Pole and proud of it. I speak the language, I know my history and culture. No contradiction here.

I’m a scientist, and I normally leave politics to others. In fact I came to the United States to get away from politics. In Poland, I was engaged in political struggle, I was a member of Solidarity, and I joined the resistance when Solidarity was crushed. I could have stayed and continued the fight, but I chose instead to leave and make my contribution to society in other areas.

There are times in history when it’s best for scientists to sit in their ivory towers and do what they are trained to do — science. There is time when it’s best for engineers to design new things, write software, and build gadgets that make life easier for everybody. But there are times when this is not enough. That’s why I’m interrupting my scheduled programming, my category theory for programmers blog, to say a few words about current events. Actually, first I’d like to reminisce a little.

When you live under a dictatorship, you have to develop certain skills. If direct approach can get you in trouble, you try to manipulate the system. When martial law was imposed in Poland, all international travel was suspended. I was a grad student then, working on my Ph.D. in theoretical physics. Contact with scientists from abroad was very important to me. As soon as the martial law was suspended, my supervisor and I decided to go for a visit — not to the West, mind you, but to the Soviet Union. But the authorities decided that giving passports to scientists was a great opportunity to make them work for the system. So before we could get a permission to go abroad, we had to visit the Department of Security — the Secret Police — for an interview. From our friends, who were interviewed before, we knew that we’d be offered a choice: become an informant or forget about traveling abroad.

My professor went first. He was on time, but they kept him waiting outside the office forever. After an hour, he stormed out. He didn’t get the passport.

When I went to my interview, it started with some innocuous questions. I was asked who the chief of Solidarity at the University was. That was no secret — he was my office mate in the Physics Department. Then the discussion turned to my future employment at the University. The idea was to suggest that the Department of Security could help me keep my position, or get me fired. Knowing what was coming, I bluffed, saying that I was one of the brightest young physicists around, and my employment was perfectly secure. Then I started talking about my planned trip to the Soviet Union. I took my interviewer into confidence, and explained how horribly the Soviet science is suffering because their government is not allowing their scientists to travel to the West, and how much better Polish science was because of that. You have to realize that, even in the depth of the Department of Security of a Communist country, there was no love for our Soviet brethren. If we could beat them at science, all the better. I got my passport without any more hassle.

I was exaggerating a little, especially about me being so bright, but it’s true that there is an international community of scientists and engineers that knows no borders. Any impediment to free exchange of ideas and people is very detrimental to its prosperity and, by association, to the prosperity of the societies they live in.

I consider the recent Muslim ban — and that’s what it should be called — a direct attack on this community, on a par with climate-change denials and gag orders against climate scientists working for the government. It’s really hard to piss off scientists and engineers, so I consider this a major accomplishment of the new presidency.

You can make fun of us nerds as much as you want, but every time you send a tweet, you’re using the infrastructure created by us. The billions of matal-oxide field-effect transistors and the liquid-crystal display in your tablet were made possible by developments in quantum mechanics and materials science. The operating system was written by software engineers in languages based on the math developed by Alan Turing and Alonzo Church. Try denying that, and you’ll end up tweeting with a quill on parchment.

Scientists and engineers consider themselves servants of the society. We don’t make many demands and are quite happy to be left alone to do our stuff. But if this service is disrupted by clueless, power-hungry politicians, we will act. We are everywhere, and we know how to use the Internet — we invented it.

P. S. I keep comments to my blog under moderation because of spam. But I will also delete comments that I consider clueless.

Here’s a little anecdote about cluelessness that I heard long time ago from my physicist friends in the Soviet Union. They had invited a guest scientist from the US to one of the conferences. They were really worried that he might say something politically charged and make future scientific exchanges impossible. So they asked him to, please, refrain from any political comments.

Time comes for the guest scientist to give a talk. And he starts with, “Before I came to the Soviet Union I was warned that I will be constantly minded by the secret police.” The director of the institute, who invited our scientist, is sitting in the first row between two KGB minders. All blood is leaving his face. The KGB minders stiffen in their seats. “I’m so happy that it turned out to be nonsense,” says the scientist and proceeds to give his talk. You see, it’s really hard to imagine what it’s like to live under dictatorship unless you’ve experienced it yourself. Trust me, I’ve been there and I recognize the warning signs.

Like this:

Related

34 Responses to “I’m a Refugee”

Hi, I value your opinion and I mostly agree that any uncalled for disruptions of basic freedoms harm the society in one way or another. I also trust your experience. But isn’t it maybe too soon to judge a temporary suspension in migration. There are other concerns besides freedom of speech, some of which might prove to be comparably important, both in short-term and long-term prospects, such as security (the obvious one, and maybe easiest to dispute) but also shift in society away from reason toward faith (and there have been examples of how ugly that can become for science in history). I personally will wait to see the outcome of the measure you are referring to as Muslim ban. I wish it were easier for an ordinary person, such as me, to assess the situation reliably from across the world. Thank you for your valuable words!

I think this is a consequence of the failure of the scientists to communicate.
For example, when people deny climate change, they do not consider official reports and publications.
I think science teachers should be more concerned about teaching the scientific method than the scientific facts. They probably do because the latter is more attractive. Science is not about being fun and useful, is about being methodologically correct. “Fun and useful” is just bonus.
Climate change not being real is a lot more useful than being. If method doesn’t matter, why not chose the more useful.

An interesting experience and an interesting point of view (I agree with it, but the fate of refugees bothers me now much more than the fate of scientists).
You know that you were in a pretty good position, relatively. Imagine living in the USSR (what travel?!), not, basically, being able to legally send a paper for a foreign journal. But that’s not the worst, of course. Imagine Cuba, North Korea, and, relatively recently, a bunch of other countries.

What I mean is, we should not be too selective in our compassion. Okay, not we. I should not.

@Bartosz Milewski: I said it myself that I can understand the questionability of the “security” argument. On the other hand, I would really like to take any amount of advice on how to get my hands on reliably accurate and complete data to draw conclusions about the security implications of any of the actions different governments do (or not do) all over the world in different countries (be it Germany, UK, France, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel,…). I decided to leave a comment solely because I believe nothing is as simple as any of the sides present it. All the notable people seem to paint everything black and white and thus only further agendas of others. That in my opinion is not what scientist should take part in. I definitely did not come to argue against the values you shared in your blog post, as I said I really agree that freedom is important. I just wanted to leave a reminder that even scientist sometimes make their opinions hastily. I would understand, if you deleted my post because it offended you, I am however a little bit shocked that you considered my post first by a part of a sentence that wasn’t even the main message and proclaimed it a bogus argument based on supposed data, which I really doubt any of use can access and safely trust.

Thank you for sharing your experience and thoughtful perspective. You’ve contributed a great deal to me through my passion to understand Haskell through Category Theory. The United States, that is you and me, that is the organizations, institutions and corporations that make this country, benefits a great deal in providing a platform that inspires you to contribute as you have. Hopefully enough people will be reminded of the value in diversity. As you have articulated in your experience, a source of inspiration that is the gateway to forever more, the gateway to human potential, the promise that we can be more and do more. – E

What you say is important. We are entering a more totalitarian time. There may be measures built on the precedent set here for further restrictions, for instance on internet freedom via the new head of the FCC. This is a historical experiment, and regardless of the outcome, history will move forward. You sound as a revolutionary by nature, so be brave, be vocal, but know that it is beautiful regardless of the outcome. Time goes on.

@Bartosz Milewski: Thanks from a Syrian refugee who fled his country trying to serve science !
I have some words which I couldn’t dare to share till now. To all people who doesn’t understand muslims. Quran says “Neither the Jews, nor the Christians, will accept you, unless you follow their religion.” * This is what’s going on in every muslim mind while dealing with non-muslims. You as non-muslim either you prove this statement is false or correct.
IMO, The more people who accept muslims unconditionally, the more muslims would doubts their religion.

You may not understand or expect this but this blog post has given me so much hope. “Scientists and engineers consider themselves servants of the society.” and this is the reason why I have tremendous respect for people like you.

I am a newbie programmer and an immigrant myself – and I am deeply troubled and frustrated by the current events. I have been hesitant to discuss my concerns with my peers but on the other hand I would really like to use my skills to help (no matter how little). So, if you have any suggestions as to what a software engineer can do (legally of course), I would greatly appreciate it!

If you want to understand most of “western” non-muslims people – they usually don’t care about other people’s religion until someone tells them what to do or how to think. I usually don’t speak about my religion and so do most of people that speak with me – except muslims.

So please just don’t tell others what they should do or not (like “either you prove this statement”) and it will be ok. 😉

We are all part of generations that have been witnessing one of the most amazing technological and scientific leaps achieved by humanity. Not to mention all the advances in philosophy, democracy, and human rights. Besides all this progress, human kind is still blind-sided by imaginary lines that we call borders, defined centuries ago where sovereignty meant something completely different from today, and by faith in imaginary deities (no intention to be disrespectful to religious people) that has been used to create so much hate and suffering . We need a new leap – a new humanitarian leap – that builds the foundations for a global community based on love, education, respect, and sustainability. Nationalism, religion, and savage capitalism are blocking this new leap. It is part of our role as scientists and engineers to contribute to the discussion and to the definition of the necessary and sufficient grounds for a better global community.
Thanks @BartoszMilewski for sharing your story and knowledge.

Janos Kornai (a prominent Hungarian economist) has an interesting essay where he analyses different political forms:

He distinguishes a form, so called ‘autocracy’ somewhere between democracy and dictatorship. He calls a political form ‘autocracy’ when it has the following main characteristics: (1) there’s no peaceful way to remove the goverment and institutions to ensure such peaceful removement are weak (that’s where it differs from democracy) meanwhile (2) legal parliamentary opposition exists and there’s no terror (that’s where it differs from dictatorship).

‘Autocracy’ is the term he uses to describe the current political situation in my country, Hungary. Having grown up in the socialist regime I find it a better term than ‘dictatorship’ to describe the current state of affairs. We are not there, yet. We are somewhere in the middle. Also ‘autocracy’ might better describe the state, where US might be heading, now. Although I do hope that US people and institutions will be much stronger to guard against that attempt if there’s such an attempt.

hi Bartosz: I’m a Canadian journalist/technologist who worked in Poland extensively 1989-1995. I completely understand the distinctions you make and the warnings you offer.

My take? I believe the American empire is indeed (for all its manifest blessings and extraordinary people) heading for an all-ends-against-the-middle fight for the table scraps of capitalism. Trump’s win is no vindication of much of anything save rage against elites; the horror is that he himself is stalking horse for the corporate people who are prime beneficiaries of his workings.

I met Walesa in a washroom at the then-brand-new Hotel Bristol; through an interpreter, I asked him about the women whose unsung work for Solidarity (including the now-forgotten crane operator Anna Walentynowicz) made so much possible and got a startling reply: “The KGB were nothing compared to the women of Poland.” I thought of that small incident the day of the Women’s March on Washington. Trump will never, ever defeat the women of America.

All that to say: yours is a beautiful memorable piece about what it is to come to know freedom (of all stripes: political, intellectual, creative) and never to let it go. I have high hopes for the US in the next few years: if Trump has done nothing else, he has ripped off the Band-Aid of illusions about corporate power and political control in the USA.

The real question is…who will respond and actually do something about it?

Bartosz, first of all I am very glad you have found a home in the United States. With your outlook on our country I personally would welcome any immigrant or refugee that shared your feelings toward the United States. I will openly admit to my ignorance when it comes to necessity for a scientist to travel to other areas as opposed to the use of skype, webex etc. to communicate and educate. I will agree with you to an extent that this is in sense a muslim ban, in that same sense though, Muslim extremists are currently the biggest immediate security threat to Western Civilization. I also completely agree that the current administration has been very wreckless about comments to many, including the scientific community. I do have a series of questions that I hope you will answer for me in hopes that you can educate me or help me understand some things.
1) No question Global Warming is taking place. What is the REALISTIC possibility of us being able to do anything to significantly change the rate of or reverse its affects?
2) As a former refugee, what would you like to see happen with our current policies regarding refugees and immigration? Keeping in mind that we currently are having trouble providing for those we currently have here and have more debt than anyone in the world.
3) You made the comment about recognizing the warning signs of a dictatorship. I agree, that if Trump could be a dictator her would. But he can’t. Based on your personal history and knowledge, what puts us more at risk as a country and society? Socialism with a globalism ideaology or I call it the “Dave Ramsey approach” Living like no one else (no other country) so that we can give like no one else. The Dave Ramsey approach is not what I think the Trump administration is doing, but I will say they are making that possible.

Fadel, I as a Christian find the quote of the Quran very interesting. The reason I say this is not to question it. But because in today’s society I can certainly see how that can be perceived as true. But I would like to share a very basic principle of the Christian faith that I wish more legitimately followed. The principle is as simple as Love thy Neighbor. This is both very simple and complex. The short version is, regardless of the person’s beliefs, actions, lifestyle, etc. As Christians it is our duty to show God’s love. It is not our duty to cast judgement on anyone. That is to be left to God the Father. So yes I understand the quote, especially in today’s world. But if you look at the simple teachings I will also say that that quote is completely false. I wish you nothing but the best and if interested would love to speak with you more in regards to this or in that matter any other topic.

Creating mass hysteria about external threats is a cheap trick in every autocrat’s toolbox. First you find an external enemy. Then you go after people in your own country, under the pretext that they are supporting that enemy. Putin does it, Kim Jong Un does it, Castro did it, Lenin and Stalin did it. Find me one autocrat who doesn’t have an external enemy to direct hate towards. I lived in a Communist Poland and I was constantly indoctrinated about the US and NATO making plans to annihilate us. So it really scares me when I hear this kind of rhetoric.

Global warming: Frankly, I don’t think we can stop or reverse it. But we have to do everything to slow it down. Or children and grandchildren will be paying for our inaction. Please, trust independent scientists! (Not the ones paid by oil companies.)

Refugees: The United States is one of the richest countries in the world. It might not seem like it when you see homeless people in the streets. But that’s because of inequality. The US has probably one of the most selfish populations in the world. Other rich industrialized countries are taking care of their poor and underprivileged. They also take care of refugees. This kind of insensitivity to human suffering is striking, considering that the US is one of the most religious Christian countries in the world.

Dictatorship: I really hope that the American system is resilient enough to defend itself from any attempts towards autocracy. The pillars of democracy are free press and the separation of powers. So every time I hear Trump attacking the media or the judiciary, it sends shivers down my spine.

Feel free to remove this post, I would however appreciate if you could drop me a reply for example to my e-mail, because I really admire you and cannot accept some of your arguments you use without further discussion, but of course I understand you probably have better things to do 🙂

@Bartosz Milewski: “Did you know that toddlers killed more Americans than terrorists in 2015”, I know you posted this in reply to someone else, but what argument is this really? I totally agree that mass hysteria is bad, so is mass ignorance and apathy. I know what you are warning us against, and I agree that we need to avoid that, but we also need to avoid dismissing everything just because it looks like a tool for an autocrat such as Trump. There are different reasons why people die. Today you act like it is beneath you to think terrorism has any significant impact on the lives of ordinary people, and that it is hysteria when people do not want to get run over by car on a bus stop, but do please admit that the rise of violence connected to religious believes has increased in the past few years in the western countries. How can you be sure that there is nothing that needs to be done to avoid further escalation. I believe it is exactly in the spirit of your argument about global warming, global warming does not strictly speaking kill us now, but it will eventually, that is why we need to take precautions and try to minimize the damage before it is too late. I am not saying Trump handles anything appropriately. But I think it would bring much more good If you fought against what you think is inappropriate with facts rather than opinions. You cannot seem to stress enough how people are being “brainwashed” with false pretext for various acts/actions. But have you ever seen any piece of evidence that it is a false pretext? Because absence of evidence is a weak argument. No offense but I find your responses to be as dogmatic as I would expect from those you oppose in your opinion.

Thank you for your response. I hope you find debate not only as educational but eye opening, like I do. My thoughts on Muslim Extremists are not built from the media or the government. They are built from the many first hand accounts I have heard from those people I have developed relationships with that have spent time overseas both in the military and as missionaries. I understand your statistic and wouldn’t even think to fact check it, because I am almost certain you are correct. That does not mean though that the threat does not exist.

1) But can we slow it down? From a realistic standpoint can this be done. I ask this seriously. Because you and I both know that cars are not going anywhere, and as much as we could try to regulate in the United States or Europe there are always poor countries willing to waive regulations to welcome Industries that are destroying our environment. I 100% agree with the idea of wanting to slow it down. But I have never heard an effective idea that will actually do so.
2) I think you and I might be closer on this than we realize. I agree that the US could have the funds, but the systems used to dispurse them are faulty and corrupt.I am a strong believer in empowerment, not enablement. To call the US a Christian country these days is probably an error. I say this sadly. Many people have left the belief system behind for greed, fear of being labeled intolerant, or because they have been turned off by those who manipulate the teachings. I am not opposed to the idea of refugees or immigrants in the least. I just want to be sure that they view this Country the way that you do, and that they come here in a manner that is respectful to the current set of laws that are in place.
3) When I say this I almost cringe myself, because although I obviously lean right, I find Trump’s rhetoric and attacks to be extremely destructive. That being said no one can honestly do their research and deny a large portion of the media has been extremely unfair to him. Now the media has been very bad on both sides, but a majority has been very anti-trump. As I said it is not a defense of his antics but more a mere understanding of why. The good news is, I truly believe that a vast majority of the people who voted for him would also be some of the first to stand up against him if he were the cause of our democracry collapsing.

@jd823592: I actually only deleted one comment that I considered clueless.

I’m not sure what your point is, though. You seem to agree with me on most points. The ban makes no sense, it’s a giant manipulation of public opinion, it’s bringing harm to the country, and it’s punishing people who are in a very desperate situation. And, please, watch the Seattle court proceedings to see why it’s illegal. I did.

@Sensible: Does the threat exist? Of course it does. We had 9/11, and there were several serious attacks by Muslim extremists in Europe. But does it mean we should condemn all Muslims because of the actions of a tiny minority? Or because our politicians tell us that we should be scared?

If our moral values are so fragile that we are willing to abandon them at the slightest risk to ourselves, than we are a nation of hypocrites.

As for global warming, yes we can do a lot. Switching away from coal is a step in the right direction (convincing China to do the same is a bit harder, though). Engaging other countries is very important, so isolationist policies are making us more vulnerable.

My understanding is that being an American has nothing to do with ethnicity, religion, or personal history.

Your understanding is incorrect. Just as there is such a thing as an ethnic Pole, there is also such a thing as an ethnic American. I am one.

To flee your ethnic homeland homeland was your necessity or your choice, but you ought not now ask me to flee mine—or, what is the same, you ought not to deny that I have an ethnic homeland. Like you, I do have an ethnic homeland. My ethnic homeland is the United States.

The collection of Donald J. Trump’s supporters may be regarded to be a rough approximant of ethnic America.

I believe that you are a good man. I desire no conflict with you, but it would help if you would try harder to understand my perspective and the perspective of millions like me. I suspect that you live in some part of the U.S. in which there aren’t very many strong ethnic Americans left. You should get around more.

The Preamble to the Constitution and the Federalist Papers have never been more relevant. The Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

That phrase, “to ourselves and our Posterity,” was not put there by accident.

These are extremely serious questions. If U.S. progressives continue to deny the legitimacy of the opposite side of the debate, if they continue to pretend that there never existed an ethnic America, if they fail to grasp that the lunatic drive toward the demographic displacement of ethnic America is dead sure to lead to civil war, then when they get their civil war—Bartosz, it is going to be terrible, the casualties will run to the tens of millions, and the progressives will lose. You will want to go back to Poland.

I won’t go back anywhere, because this is the only country I’ve got.

I really, really don’t want any of that to happen, but future immigration has got to be restricted and future public policy measures are to tend toward the restoration of the old ethnic balance. (For some bizarre reason, progressives seem to regard the last suggestion as hate. Hate! The Hate Haters should project less, empathize more, and ask themselves why policies that drive the ethnic balance the other way have been fine with them for decades.)

There just is no alternative. And it is just obvious that, to the extent to which we have future immigration at all, ethnically compatible immigration is on the whole strongly preferable to ethnically incompatible immigration, which is most of what we’ve been getting in recent decades. The only way one can deny this is to deny that there exists any ethny with which to be compatible in the first place. That won’t do.

A progressive may take temporary solace in the fact that my kind of American is outnumbered in this comment column, but … well, I’ll leave it as an exercise to deduce why Trump voters aren’t commenting here in large numbers.

It is decent of you to post my comment. Regarding apologies, your courtesy is appreciated, yet far too many apologies have been demanded across our society in recent years. I would never ask an apology from you! Indeed, your blog has edified, illuminating so many programming topics with such clarity over the years, that I stand in your debt.

Regarding your question, I am no Native American or American Indian, but an ordinary, small-n native American of Anglo-European blood, descended in part from, and identifying in whole with, the people the Constitution’s preamble names. I stand by ancestry and sentiment among the Americans George Washington directly addresses in his Farewell with the words, “With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”

Let me try to understand it: You say you are Anglo-European. Your ancestors were refugees from another continent, ethnically different from the original inhabitants of this land. I don’t understand how you can say America is your ethnic homeland.